Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2610580, member: 8215"] Yep, all of that. There is a massive amount of discretionary powers given to the auditor, but in saying that you'd have to think that he is still answerable to [I]someone[/I], and would have to be able to justify his decisions. I think the Inglis case is a good example of why all income streams must be reported - in that there were clearly deals that that relied on him being at Souths, for example ambassador roles for businesses or groups that are local to their region etc, that were right to be included in their cap. A local BMW dealership? Please. Technically, external 3rd party deals have to be sourced by the manager, not the club, but we all know that managers put that responsibility back on the club and say "what can you offer us", and then once it's arranged it just goes through the manager and the club wipes their metaphoric hands of it. I agree that Gasnier's situation wasn't as big as it was made out to be - in that he was only ever going to play for the Dragons and therefore what he'd technically demand from any other club is irrelevant. I just think it was a red flag to the NRL, for them to be aware that it could be easily exploited. I actually think it was the other way around. My take on it was that they had squirreled a decent amount of cap space away for Hunt, who was bound to command big $$, and that's why they didn't have the money to upgrade Petero. Which is why Hunt's defection hit so hard, because they were juggling everything to retain him. If they'd known he'd be lost to the club, I have no doubt Petero would never have left and he'd be getting paid what he was worth. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now